Open thread: Final Senate vote on Gang of Eight bill set for 4 p.m. ET; Update: Bill passes, 68/32

posted at 3:21 pm on June 27, 2013 by Allahpundit

The final cloture vote was held this morning and passed with 68 yeses, two shy of Schumer’s goal at the start of this process. After three days of pleading with fencesitters and, no doubt, tempting them with earmarks and other legislative kickbacks to bring them on board, they still couldn’t get to 70. The 14 Republicans who voted yes this morning:

I’m laying that down as a marker in case any of them votes no this afternoon in a cheap attempt to convince their constituents that they’re actually against the bill. As for why the Gang didn’t get to 70, why would they at this point? Fencesitters are facing a rising tide of grassroots pressure plus the unwelcome fact that both Boehner and Paul Ryan have insisted the Senate bill won’t even get a vote in the House. (House deputy whip Peter Roskam called it “a pipe dream.”) The whole point of having 70 yeses in the Senate was, in theory, to put pressure on the House to act, but the backlash to Rubio and the bill among conservative media and activists has eliminated that. If you’re Rob Portman, say, what do you gain at this point by voting for a bill that won’t be enacted and that may earn you bitter opposition in a primary? Not to keep picking on Rubio, but this really does boil down to his inability, despite his best attempts, to sell the bill to the right. Even if he couldn’t persuade them to support it, it would have been a huge win for pro-amnesty Republicans if he had managed to temper the intensity of the opposition. That might have gotten the Senate closer to 80 yeses, notwithstanding the bill’s fate in the House, which would have helped the GOP leadership with its PR efforts towards Latino voters. As it is, only a minority of the caucus is supporting it. I don’t blame Rubio for failing at what was probably an impossible task, but he did fail.

By the way, don’t look now but the bill is starting to sound creaky among liberals too. The NYT has a piece out this morning about lefties grumbling that the weak Corker/Hoeven border-security provisions (see this account of Hugh Hewitt’s brutal interview with Hoeven to understand how weak) are nonetheless too strong for their liking. Meanwhile, at TNR, T.A. Frank makes the Kaus-ian case that the bill will be a disaster for the working class:

All in all, I became convinced that high levels of low-skill immigration are good for wealthy Americans and bad for poor Americans. Far more important, high levels of illegal immigration—when you start to get into the millions, as we have—undermines unions and labor standards, lowers wages, heightens social tensions, strains state budgets, widens income inequality, subverts the rule of law, and exacerbates class divides. The effects go far beyond wages, because few undocumented workers earn enough to cover anything close to the cost of government services (such as education for their children) they require, and those services are most important to low-income Americans. In short, it’s an immense blow to America’s working class and poor.

Most labor unions support the current legislation, of course, but few of them seem to acknowledge the possibility of a mass influx of a future illegal workforce. In part, that’s because the SEIU and many other unions have thousands of undocumented members, and raising a fuss about enforcement or opposing the current bill would alienate their own members. It’s probably also that they believe, unrealistically, that the bill would be effective at controlling the border in the future.

And a lot of Democrats have also convinced themselves that even if there’s a wage loss to low-skilled workers, the massive new voting bloc of mostly left-leaning immigrants will ultimately help the little guy. But if millions of new Democratic voters oppose strict immigration control, then there will no Democratic support for meaningful immigration control. And generous social benefits cannot coexist with an open border. (Nor can a more egalitarian society.)

One of the things that helped kill McCain’s last amnesty effort a few years ago was this same objection being championed by Democrats like Byron Dorgan. If House Democrats start to peel off because of it on top of the fact that some will peel off in objection to the border measures proposed by the GOP House majority, then reform is almost certainly dead.

Update: I mentioned a few days ago about how grumpy McCain had gotten with Deb Fischer over her opposition to the bill, but I didn’t see the video until last night. Here you go. Apparently, if you haven’t physically visited the border recently, your concerns about the Gang’s security provisions are stupid.

Update:Tim Mak asks a good question. Isn’t Republican leadership supposed to be, at a minimum, agnostic about the Gang’s bill as part of their outreach to Latinos? Here’s NRSC spokesman Brad Dayspring:

“It’s just another sign that even vulnerable [pro-amnesty] Democrats like Landrieu, Begich, Hagan and Pryor are more loyal to Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama than they are to middle-class men and women struggling in their home states.”

The problem: What about Republicans supporting the immigration bill? Couldn’t that same criticism — that a yes vote demonstrates an allegiance to national party leaders over constituents — be extended to GOP senators who support ongoing immigration reform efforts, especially in states where public opinion is mixed on the issue?

Schumer’s been know to refer to pro-amnesty GOP senators as “our Republicans.” I understand that politics is a cynical game, but bashing red-state Democrats for selling out on the border while backslapping the Rubios of the world for their outreach is really something. How do you reconcile them? Quote:

Republican strategists say their party needs to improve its performance among Hispanic voters, the fastest growing major electoral bloc, to remain competitive in future elections.

But they view Hispanic voters as more important in the 2016 presidential election than the 2014 midterm elections, which will have lower turnout.

So the party stays officially anti-amnesty for three more years, then makes a hard pro-amnesty pivot for the presidential campaign? I can’t imagine that backfiring with anyone, except for … everyone.

Update: The deed is done: 68 yes votes, same as in this morning’s cloture vote. No roll yet but I see on Twitter that 14 Republicans voted yes, the same number that voted yes this morning. Presumably it’s the same 14. It’s a small relief that none of the Republicans in favor stooped to ye olde yes-on-cloture-no-on-the-final-bill game. And in the end, they still couldn’t get to 70.

Here’s something lofty to carry you into the evening from the Republican Party’s new best friend:

“In choosing this country, whether it’s my friend Marco Rubio’s parents from Cuba or my parents and great-grandparents who fled persecution from Europe, immigrants bring an appreciation for the choices and opportunities that are unique to America,” Schumer said. “Immigrants have been an essential component to our American success story. To reject this basic truth in this vote today would be a direct rebuke to the lady who shines so brightly in New York’s harbor.”

Update: Actually, let me leave you with this instead. Oof.

Hard to know which vote was more historic. The 68-32 vote for DOA immigration bill today or the 62-36 one in 2006.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Not to keep picking on Rubio, but this really does boil down to his inability, despite his best attempts, to sell the bill to the right.

It’s like the millions Miller Brewing spends advertising its swill Lite beer. No matter how many pretty chicks with huge boobs they parade around in bikinis, the beer cans are still filled with swill. Likewise, Rubio can tell his sob story about his family’s trek to freedom and crow on about de facto amnesty until he’s Dem party blue in the face, the bill still will suck.

would have helped the GOP leadership with its PR efforts towards Latino voters

If the GOP bothered to go on the offensive that supporting illegals is an evil trick on those Latinos that follow the law and played by the rules–and so the GOP will have no part of supporting or rewarding law breaking for votes by any group, as does the God-booing party.
That, repeated aggressively and often might be all that is needed and will get them far more Latino votes and respect than all the pandering “us-too” games played by the corruptocrats.

Isn’t Republican leadership supposed to be, at a minimum, agnostic about the Gang’s bill as part of their outreach to Latinos? Here’s NRSC spokesman Brad Dayspring:

“It’s just another sign that even vulnerable [pro-amnesty] Democrats like Landrieu, Begich, Hagan and Pryor are more loyal to Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama than they are to middle-class men and women struggling in their home states.”

Hell no. That’s exactly what they should do. Use this travesty of a bill against the red-state Dems who voted for it. This coupled with all of them voting for Obamacare should be enough by themselves to swing those seats to the GOP. If the idiot Republicans in the Senate who voted for amnesty are offended by that campaign strategery, that’s their problem.

I wouldn’t be surprised if MSNBC is right now looking for the whackiest right-winger they can find, hoping he’ll say something like he and his group will secure the border if Washington won’t do it. In ten minutes, we’ll all be painted as trigger happy, and there will be calls for more gun control and demands our newly-documented fellows be protected from Tea Party violence.

Not sure who the repub strategists are but they need to be fired. And it speaks to why I won’t give money to the GOP. I got totally rolled on going the candidate route with Rubio but my record is pretty good otherwise.

Any Senator who votes to allow ILLEGAL aliens to remain in the U.S. and be placed on a path to Citizenship, no longer represents the interests of the American people and should be VOTED OUT OF OFFICE asap.

McCain, in terms of his age, doesn’t have that many years left on this earth, and those he has will be lived in luxury. He doesn’t care for all the people who will be adversely affected by this bill. The citizens of this country are nothing to him.

McCain, in terms of his age, doesn’t have that many years left on this earth, and those he has will be lived in luxury. He doesn’t care for all the people who will be adversely affected by this bill. The citizens of this country are nothing to him.

Rose on June 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM

All he cares about is a “Legacy.” his McCain-Feingold got shredded by SCOTUS, he didn’t get elected president…He wants to have some lasting impact on DC. Unfortunately, he has…

The imminent passage of shamnesty will split the Repubican party even further. Which is one of the core reasons the Dims and Obama are making this happen NOW. They know this is going to hurt every single Repube that votes for it, and will just increase the Dims chances of making big gains next year in the mid-terms.

in addition to being a rino, Rubio needs to be blamed for dividing the republicans with his amnesty lies. if we lose seats next year it’s because of the divide that Rubio caused!

as far as “republican strategists” saying we need Hispanic votes, well, today i’m a republican strategists and I say we don’t. my record is zero wins and zero losses which is a lot fewer losses than those supposed experts.

We need to focus on what Ted Cruz was pointing out the other day: this bill will give employers a huge incentive to hire illegal aliens over American citizens due to obamacare. the right needs to hammer home this point daily that thousands, possibly millions in the middle class could lose their jobs due to this. Most people are completely unaware of the disaster this will cause. And over the recesses this summer, we need to bring the same heat we brought in 09. then show up in nov 14 and vote in patriots.

Update: I mentioned a few days ago about how grumpy McCain had gotten with Deb Fischer over her opposition to the bill, but I didn’t see the video until last night. Here you go. Apparently, if you haven’t physically visited the border recently, your concerns about the Gang’s security provisions are stupid

If Republican voters dont primary out a couple of these frauds we might as well start a third party. Whats the point of being part of of a group that not only hate you and your beliefs but rewards action detrimental to the country?

If we are going down the toilet, lets go….im tired of this “picking at the band-aid” bull pucky….yank that puppy off. Lets send all these GOP jerks back into civilian life just in time to live with what they created.

The only way we pull out of this downward spiral now, is to change the game. The GOP will never do more than slightly delay our fiery crash.

Even Reagan couldnt change the Republican party and after his 8 years they went right back to being progressive focused failures.

The Whigs went away, and so, too, should the GOP.

Rand Paul is the perfect guy to lead the charge.

Something has to change, I, for one, want a different outcome than the continual deterioration of the past 50 years.